Talk:Goto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| 1 |
Contents |
[edit] Java and Goto
Because of the current popularity of Java, would it be appropriate to discuss the labeled break and labeled continue statements in this article? It has always seemed to me that these constructs, though rarely used, are gotos with restrictions as to where you can "go to". --Eraticus 23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Complete Framework for Using Gotos in Java Programs
Does this belong here? Looks like a commercial promotion to me. Any other comments? (Personal POV: I mean apart from the bizzare idea of porting Fortran to Java without rewriting it; this is a joke, right?; the idea that adding jumps to Java would help; the idea that you would actually have something bug free at the end of it; the amazing amount of effort and hacks to get this into Java; why not leave it in fortran? (End personal POV) peterl 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Assembly
The article is missing a section on GOTO in assembly language. In assembly (eg PIC ASM), there are no high-level constructs such as for/if-then-else/break etc. There are only: Call/Return, Goto (=Jump) and Conditional Jump (eg the pic's skipz/skipnz). Things such as if-elseif-else are built out of conditional jumps: practically every flow-control structure in assembly is a Goto. --RichardNeill 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, in assembly there is no distinction between goto and non-goto branching. This is a distinction that can only made in higher level languages that have alternatives to "goto". Why would we need to cover "goto in assembly"? It's not even referred to as goto in assembly language. - Rainwarrior 05:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was Move. Although the (Fortran) tradition is there, I don't see a compelling reason to override MOS:CAPS; the command is genericized enough in many programming languages. See also Category:Control flow.
- GOTO → Goto —(Discuss)— This is clearly the primary topic for Goto, and the computer-language usage is not especially capitalized. It should be named in normal case as other programming statements are. Please note that the talk page is currently at Talk:Goto (command) and also needs to be moved. —The way, the truth, and the light 00:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - Just because a few modern languages are case sensitive doesn't mean that the article should default to that usage, contrary to a wider and historical usage. Instead Goto should redirect to GOTO. Note also that the command is capitalised throughout the article. And wikt:GOTO is about the command. wikt:goto is not. - jc37 09:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I did make that redirect. I am not arguing for case-sensitivity - rather, the title should not be, and therefore should use normal Wikipedia conventions to prefer lowercase. The former title of this page, Goto (command), is lowercase. Goto and GOTO simply mean the same thing. The way, the truth, and the light 22:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- No they aren't necessarily the same, per the wiktionary links I listed above. - jc37 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Wikipedia conventions dictate that article titles be title case. LordAmeth 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Per MOS:CAPS. Re article body, wouldn't <tt> be appropriate formatting for "goto"? ENeville 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - In reading over the pages, neither the MoS, nor "caps" list an example which apply to this. (Please take a moment and read the pages that you're linking to.) It's a command in programming languages (Assembly language, for example). See x86 instruction listings for examples of commands in upper case. - jc37 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] NPOV mark on critcism section
The criticism section had been marked with NPOV. But no explanation was given. The section is well referenced, and the fact that is is criticism doesn't make it POV. Please explain if you want to add that marker back in. peterl (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
